LA Watchdog for RSS

Mayor Eric Garcetti and the City Council have convinced themselves that the proposed 2017-18 budget is a “fiscally responsible spending plan” that supports the Mayor’s Back to Basics priority goals of a safe, prosperous, livable, sustainable, and well run city looking to fulfill its destiny as a world class city.

But the Los Angeles Times does not buy into Garcetti’s overly optimistic rhetoric, stating in an editorial that “the Mayor and the City Council need to GET REAL on the City’s finances” if they want LA to be a “progressive, transformed city.”

Underlying the Times’ reasoning is that although City revenues have increased by $1.2 billion since Garcetti became mayor, the “City is still stuck with an ongoing $200 million Structural Deficit” that requires “all kinds of budget gymnastics” to balance the budget, resulting in even more reductions in essential services to Angelenos.

The Times also pointed out numerous budget vulnerabilities, ranging from fewer federal dollars, the legality of the $242 million Transfer Fee from the Department of Water and Power, more expensive labor contracts, significantly higher pension contributions, and another budget busting recession.

Unfortunately for the next generations of Angelenos, Garcetti and the City Council are focused only on the present and have their heads in the sand when it comes to any discussion about the City’s financial future. And understandably so as they will be long gone when the spaghetti and meatballs hit the fan.

The City’s Four Year Budget Outlook anticipates a budget gap next year (2018-19) of $104 million and a cumulative budget gap of almost $300 million. But this does not include the impact of new labor contracts, increased contributions to its two pension plans, or any comprehensive plan to repair and maintain our lunar cratered streets, broken sidewalks, and the rest of our deteriorating infrastructure.

Over the next four years, the City is expected to negotiate new labor contracts with the police, firefighters, and civilian unions that will cost an estimated $200 million a year by the end of the fourth year.

If the City adopted a comprehensive plan to repair and maintain our streets and sidewalks, this $4 billion program will cost an estimated $250 million a year. Alternatively, the City could continue to neglect our streets, but the ultimate cost would be considerably more than $4 billion.

This does not include money needed for the City’s parks, urban forest, street lights, buildings and facilities, or its antiquated computer systems.

The City is also underfunding its two pension plans as it is relying on an overly optimistic investment rate assumption of 7.5%, rather than 6.5% as recommended by knowledgeable investors, including Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway fame and fortune. But if the City used the more realistic rate of 6.5%, the City’s annual required contribution would increase by an estimated $400 million.

Overall, these three adjustments would increase the annual deficit to over $800 million while the four-year cumulative deficit balloon to $3.4 billion.

While some of these deficits may be offset by new sources of revenues such as the pot tax, a billboard tax, revenue resulting from the new gas tax, and the linkage fee, there is still a considerable gap that needs to be addressed.

The Mayor and the City Council will ignore these findings. After all, these financial wizards are the smartest people in the room. But this is where the Los Angeles Times comes to our rescue by demanding that we have an open and transparent discussion about the City’s budget and its future obligations that have been ignored for years.

For the sake of the next generations of Angelenos, it is time for the Mayor and the members of the City Council to GET REAL about the city’s precarious finances.

(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and is the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council. He is a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. He can be reached at: lajack@gmail.com.)

LA WATCHDOG--On Monday, April 17, the Board of Public Works approved a Memorandum of Understanding between the Bureau of Sanitation and Discovery Cube Los Angeles to “develop, promote, and assist with Sanitation’s educational events and programs for a term of three years at a cost not to exceed $3 million.” This includes increasing the awareness of the City’s environmental programs and services and promoting environmental stewardship for the next generation of Angelenos.

But this deal is accompanied by an unpleasant aroma because of the controversial “investment” in 2013 of $7.5 million in the Discovery Cube by Sanitation and the Department of Water and Power and the failure of the Board members to analyze the economics and efficiency of this $3 million transaction.

The Discovery Cube has a spotted history.

In 2003, then City Council President Alex Padilla (now California’s Secretary of State) hatched an ill-conceived plan to move the Children’s Museum to the Hansen Dam complex, an out of the way location 22 miles north of City Hall. By 2013, the City’s mismanagement resulted in a $22 million “architectural eyesore” that needed an additional $21 million to design and build the exhibits. And if the City failed to open the museum, it would be on the hook to repay $18 million to other governmental entities.

As part of its reorganization plan, the City entered into a long-term management contract with Discovery Cube Orange County, a successful operator of a strategically located science oriented museum in Santa Ana.

The City Council also decided to hit up Sanitation for $3.6 million by raiding the Sewer and Solid Waste Recovery funds that are financed by the fees that are part of our DWP bill. In addition, DWP and its Ratepayers were fleeced for $3.9 million, for a total of $7.5 million.

While the City Council justified the heist of our money by saying that our children would benefit from this “world-class education center” and environmentally oriented museum, this investment was the responsibility of the Department of Recreation and Parks and the City’s General Fund, not the DWP and Sanitation Ratepayers.

Of course, in their haste to approve this new contract, none of this history was discussed by the Board members when it approved this $3 million contract that once again involved the inappropriate use of our money.

Nor did the Board members discuss the services to be performed under this open-ended contract that did not have a specific work plan or a specific list of projects. But more to the point, they did not examine the capabilities of the Discovery Cube and its ability to deliver cost effective services to Sanitation, especially when compared to other advertising mediums or venues.

Nor did the Board members consider the financial condition of the Discovery Cube and whether it is generating enough cash to cover its $5.4 million operating budget. More than likely, the museum is not hitting its financial projections and is running short of cash. This places the City in an awkward position which is why the Mayor and the City Council are putting the arm on Sanitation and its Ratepayers to fund the operational shortfall of this poorly located facility.

But once again, this financial obligation belongs with Rec & Parks and the General Fund, not the Sanitation Ratepayers.

The Mayor, the City Council, and the Board of Public Works will not have second thoughts about sticking it to Sanitation’s Ratepayers. But this will confirm why we cannot trust them to be responsible stewards of our money.

But this is nothing. Just wait until we see the games they are playing with the Budget. Hearings begin on Wednesday at 1 PM at City Hall. Bring your hip boots.

(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and is the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council. He is a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. Jack is affiliated with Recycler Classifieds -- www.recycler.com. He can be reached at: lajack@gmail.com.)

LA WATCHDOG--On Thursday morning, Mayor Eric Garcetti will deliver his State of the City address at City Hall where he will present his proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2017. And over the next two weeks, the Budget and Finance Committee headed by Paul Krekorian will conduct a review of the budget, even though the major points have already been negotiated behind closed doors.

In California, elected officials at all levels of government are constantly complaining about the need for more money, even though we are one of the highest taxed states in the county. At the same time, something is not right as we have the worst roads in the nation and vital services are being crowded out by ever increasing pension contributions.

Over the past year, the tax burden for the four million Angelenos has ballooned by almost $1.6 billion. This includes not only taxes initiated by Mayor Eric Garcetti and the City Council, but our proportionate share of numerous other taxes and fees dumped on us by the County, State, and other governmental entities. This ding of $1.6 billion does not include the Soak the Rich income tax surcharge (Proposition 55) that would have added $700 million to the tab.

Most of us do not recognize the enormity of these tax increases because they are spread over multiple jurisdictions. They also come in many different shapes and forms: property taxes, parcel taxes, sales taxes, gasoline taxes, vehicle license fees, storm water taxes (aka the Rain Tax), income taxes, and a 20% tax on our DWP power bill.

LIVE LA BUDGET MEETING COVERAGE BEGINS THURSDAY—ON CITYWATCH

LA Watchdog reports live daily from every important budget meeting

CITYWATCHLA.COM

For the average Angeleno, the $1.6 billion hit averages about $390 per person, or $1,560 for a family of four.

To put it in a different perspective, if all these new levies were placed on our houses and apartments, our property taxes would balloon by almost 30%.

Or if the $1.6 billion in new taxes were to be paid via the sales tax, it would soar to 11.4%.

But wait, there’s more!

The City, the County, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and State, are seriously considering an additional $2.7 billion in new taxes.

This does not include any initiatives from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Nor does it include any direct taxes to pay for our share for the tens and tens of billions of the unfunded pension liabilities, although a good argument can be made that a portion of these new and contemplated taxes will indirectly fund our ever-increasing pension contributions.

Combining the contemplated taxes with the 2016 and 2017 tax increases, the hit is $4.3 billion, or $1,100 for every Angeleno, $4,400 for a family of four and would result in a 16% sales tax (up over 80%), and an 80% bump in our property taxes.

So, when our elected officials come pleading poor mouth, you know the not so proper response to these money grubbing, self-servicing politicians. We are not your #*@^&+# ATM.

++++++++

The following is a list of new taxes by jurisdiction which details our proportionate share. They are followed by taxes that are being considered by the financial wizards who occupy City Hall, the County Hall of Administration, the AQMD, and the State Capitol. You can also access the attached spreadsheet for a one page summary.

NEW TAXES

City of Los Angeles (100%)

Measure HHH – The $1.2 billion homeless bond that was approved by voters in November will cost us an average of $65 million a year for the next 30 years.

DWP – The five year, $1 billion rate increase in our water and power rates that was approved by Mayor Garcetti and the City Council will provide the City with $150 million in tax revenue by 2021.

Metro (40%)

Measure M – The half cent increase in our sales tax that was approved in November is projected to raise $750 million a year. Our 40% share is $300 million.

Measure H – The quarter cent increase in our sales tax that was approved in March will provide $375 million to fund services for the homeless. Our 40% share is $150 million.

Los Angeles Community College District (75%)

Measure CC – The $3.3 billion bond that was approved in November will cost us an average of $150 million over the next 30 years.

State of California (10%)

Measure 51 – Our share of the $9 billion educational facilities bond that was approved in November is $50 million a year for the next 30 years.

Measure 56 – Our share of the $1.4 billion cigarette tax that was approved by the voters in November is $140 million a year.

Gas Tax (SB 1 - The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017) – Governor Jerry Brown recently approved the $5.2 billion a year increase in the gas tax and vehicle license fees. We are on the hook for $520 million a year.

TAXES UNDER CONSIDERATION

City (100%)

Street Bond – The Measure M Local Return revenue from Metro and the funds allocated to local governments in the new Gas Tax reduced the street repair bond to $2 billion from $4.5 billion. This will cost us $120 million for the next 30 years.

The Affordable Housing Linkage Fee will raise an estimated $100 million a year from new residential and commercial developments. This fee will eventually flow through to us as there is no such thing as a free lunch.

County (40%)

Stormwater Tax – The County is considering a Rain Tax (“God created rain and you figured out how to tax it.”) to finance a $20 billion storm water capture plan over the next 20 years. Our share will be $400 million a year.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (25%)

The SCAQMD is discussing an increase in the vehicle license fee of $30, raising an estimated $300 million. This money will fund smog reduction programs in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Our share will be an estimated $75 million.

State (10%)

Sales Tax - Senator Bob Hertzberg is pushing to expand the sales tax to include services. Our share of the $10 billion increase will be $1 billion.

Split Roll – Property taxes on commercial and manufacturing property would be based on market value and not on the values established under Proposition 13. Our share of this $10 billion tax haul will be $1 billion.

UC Bonds – The State is considering asking the voters to approve a $2 billion bond to finance facilities for the University of California and the California State University systems. Our share will be $12 million a year for the next 30 years.

Park Bonds – The State is also considering placing a measure on the ballot to raise $3 billion to pay for the repair of the neglected State Parks. Our share will be $18 million a year for the next 30 years.

The creative geniuses that are responsible for our Structural Deficits, our lunar cratered streets and failing bridges, and tens of billions in unfunded pension liabilities will no doubt create other schemes to pick our pockets. They will select a hot button issue that appeals to our sympathies that has been underfunded because they are not willing to prioritize their spending, preferring to answer the demands of the campaign funding leaders of the City’s public unions.

Tax Angeles … to be continued! Unfortunately!

(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and is the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council. He is a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. Jack is affiliated with Recycler Classifieds -- www.recycler.com. He can be reached at: lajack@gmail.com.)

LA WATCHDOG--While the City of Los Angeles has some of the worst streets in the country, there is no plan to repair and maintain our 6,500 miles of streets and 900 miles of alleys because of the lack of sufficient funding as pension contributions and other personnel costs have devoured the City’s budget. Rather, the City is bouncing from pot hole to pot hole, filing cracks with slurry, and ignoring the one-third of our streets that are in a failed condition.

In 2014, the Save Our Streets LA plan indicated that the City needed approximately $4 billion over the next twenty years to restore our network of streets to good working order. But in 2014, there was not the political will to place a half cent increase in our sales tax on the ballot, especially after the Controller’s audit of Street Services exposed a very inefficient department.

But now the City has two new sources of cash to fund the repair and maintenance of our streets and alleys.

Last week, the State passed a new transportation bill that will generate $52 billion over the next ten years from higher gasoline and diesel fuel taxes and increased vehicle license fees. Under the local return provisions of this legislation, the City anticipates receiving $100 million a year or $1 billion over the next ten years.

In November, the voters approved Measure M, the half cent increase in our sales tax to fund Metro’s ever increasing operating losses and its ambitious expansion plans. This measure provides that local governments will share in 17% of the revenue based on their share of the County’s population. Under this plan, the City will receive $56 million next year and $700 million over the next ten years based on Metro’s projections.

Over the next 40 years, the Measure M Local Return revenue to the City is projected to be $5.1 billion.

The Save Our Streets LA plan may also benefit from stricter oversight of the Local Return revenue from Measure R, the half cent increase in our sales tax that was approved by the voters in 2008. While the Local Return revenue is expected to be $45 million this year, only half of that revenue was allocated to Street Services as the City diverted $15 million to the General Fund and $8 million to the Department of Transportation.

Over the next 10 years, the Measure R Local Return revenue is expected to be over $600 million and $5 billion over the next 40 years.

The City also received Local Return revenue of $128 million this year from Proposition A (approved by the voters in 1980) and Proposition C (approved by the voters in 1990). But true to form, the City diverted 21% of this Local Return revenue to the General Fund while less than 10% made it to Street Services.

Well maintained streets are vital to the City’s economy and to the orderly flow of traffic. But they are not a budget priority for the Mayor or the City Council as funding for Street Services has been neglected while General Fund revenues have increased by $1 billion over the last four years.

But now that the City has the resources from the State and Metro, it is time to go Back to Basics and make the repair and maintenance of our lunar cratered streets and alleys a Priority Outcome.

Our City needs a network of efficient and well maintained streets, especially if we want to be a showcase to the world when we host the Olympics in 2024.

(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and is the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council. He is a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. Jack is affiliated with Recycler Classifieds -- www.recycler.com. He can be reached at: lajack@gmail.com.)

LA WATCHDOG--We are still ploughing through the more than 1,800 pages of budget material that was dropped on us this afternoon, trying to figure out what games the City is playing to finance this year’s budget deficit and how it proposes to close the $245 million budget gap for the upcoming fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017.

However, based on the City’s General Fund Budget Outlook, our Back to Basics City is having a difficult time living within its means as the cumulative budget deficit over the next four years is expected to be almost $300 million despite a $675 million increase in revenues.

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022, the last full year of Mayor Eric Garcetti’s second term, the City is projecting a surplus of $10 million, a pittance considering that over his nine years in office, revenues are expected to increase by $1.9 billion, or 42%.

This modest surplus of $10 million is pure fiction. It does reflect the real world.

The Budget Outlook does not take into consideration any new labor contracts for the police, firefighters, and civilian workers. This will cost the City at least $200 million a year more than projected.

The annual required contribution to the City’s two underfunded pension plans are understated as it is unlikely that the return on invested assets will meet the assumed rate of return of 7.5%, an overly optimistic rate per investment professionals such as Warren Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway fame and fortune.

The City may also follow the example of CalPERS (California Public Employees Retirement System), the country’s largest pension plan, by lowering its investment rate assumption. This would add hundreds of millions to the annual required contribution.

The City is also not addressing the deferred maintenance on its streets, sidewalks, parks, trees, building and facilities, and the rest of its deteriorating infrastructure. The deferred maintenance ticket has been estimated to be north of $10 billion a year.

If the City were to have a comprehensive plan to repair and maintain our streets and sidewalks, it would require at least another $100 to $200 million a year.

The City also needs to strengthen the Reserve Fund to an amount equal to 10% of General Fund revenues, a level recommended by the City Administrative Officer. The $100 million Budget Stabilization Fund would also be included in the rainy-day fund calculation. This will require an investment of $250 million over the next five years.

This additional investment in the Reserve Fund will benefit from the issuance of $60 million of Judgment Obligation Bonds, a done deal given the City’s desperate need for cash.

In his State of the City address, Mayor Eric Garcetti said that “our work will not be measured by what we do for ourselves today. It will be remembered for what we leave behind for our children and grandchildren.”

Despite all the fine rhetoric and lofty goals, we are doing a “disservice” to the next generations of Angelenos as we will leave them with a broken system and tens of billions in liabilities that will devour their future as they will pay for the sins of the past.

Back to Basics means that the City of Los Angeles must learn to Live Within Its Means.

(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and is the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council. He is a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. Jack is affiliated with Recycler Classifieds -- www.recycler.com. He can be reached at: lajack@gmail.com.)

LA WATCHDOG--Pension and postretirement benefits have slammed the finances of IBEW Local 18, the union that represents more than 90% of the employees of our Department of Water and Power. Over the last five years, the liability for postretirement benefit obligations has tripled, increasing by $4 million to $5.9 million. At the same time, the net worth of Local 18 has taken a 70% hit, declining by almost $5 million, from $7.1 million to only $2.2 million.

While dues from members has grown by $1.4 million (17%) to almost $10 million (1.25% of salaries) since 2011, increased costs for pensions and postretirement benefits have contributed to annual losses, including a ding of $1.6 million in 2016.

All this makes for a very nice pension plan for IBEW Union Bo$$ d’Arcy, the Local 18’s long time business manager. But if you talk to his members, they are not complaining about his generous compensation or his rich retirement package. To the contrary, they believe he has earned every cent given what he has accomplished for his more than 8,000 members who enjoy above average wages and benefits.

Over the years, the IBEW Labor Premium has been estimated to be in the range of $200 to $250 million. This does not include the impact of overly restrictive work rules and burdensome staffing requirements.

The key to Union Bo$$ d’Arcy’s success is that he has enjoyed the support of many members of the City Council who have benefitted from his generous campaign contributions. He has also intimidated those who would dare to oppose his contract demands. Just ask Bernard Parks who barely beat an incompetent opponent who was bankrolled by the IBEW in 2011.

The undue influence of Union Bo$$ d’Arcy is why we must insist on an open and transparent discussion of the ongoing labor negotiations between DWP and the IBEW. While personnel costs now exceed $1.5 billion, there are many other issues besides wages, healthcare benefits, and pensions that need to be addressed. These include overtime, outsourcing, work rules, staffing levels, benchmarking of operations, training (especially after the recent audit of Controller Ron Galperin), and the Joint Training and Safety Institutes.

As suggested by the Los Angeles Times, there needs to be public hearings that lay out the expectations and goals of the Department and the City and their impact on Ratepayers. These hearings should also disclose the status of the current negotiations as the existing contract expires on September 30.

We should also be informed on a timely basis (say 24 hours) of any offers and counter offers made by either party during the negotiations.

The cost of all offers or proposals should be analyzed by a qualified independent third party who, unlike the City Administrative Officer and the Chief Legislative Analyst, is free from political pressure.

All communications between the participants and their staffs must also be disclosed on a timely basis.

Finally, there must be adequate time for a “full and public analysis” of the contract before it is placed on the agenda of the City Council.

In the past, we have been presented with a “done deal” that is automatically approved by the City Council and Mayor without any real input from Ratepayers who are paying the bill. In this era of political upheaval and uncertainty, now is the time for our Elected Elite to endorse reform and implement an open and transparent process in labor negotiations that will help restore our trust and confidence in City Hall and the Department of Water and Power.

A little sunshine never hurt anyone.

(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and is the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council. He is a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. Jack is affiliated with Recycler Classifieds -- www.recycler.com. He can be reached at: lajack@gmail.com.)

LA WATCHDOG--Contrary to the recommendation of Controller Ron Galperin, the Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution on Wednesday approving the issuance of up to $60 million of Judgment Obligation Bonds. The net proceeds will be used to replenish the City’s Reserve Fund that has been the source of the cash needed to pay for a slew of lost law suits that far exceeded the $68 million in the City’s budget.

Under this plan to fatten up the Reserve Fund, the City will be on the hook for annual payments of almost $8 million for the next ten years, a total of $80 million. This includes approximately $20 million in interest payments to wealthy California investors who love double tax exempt bonds, money that the City could devote to priorities such as our streets and sidewalks, Vision Zero (safe streets), or the homeless.

This annual payment of $8 million is in addition to the $9 million payment associated with the $50 million of Judgment Obligation Bonds issued in 2010 to fund, in part, the legal payments involving the May Day demonstrations in and around McArthur Park in 2007.

Galperin, on the other hand, recommends that the City save $20 million in interest expense by forgoing the issuance of the Judgment Obligation Bonds. He proposes to restore the balance of the Reserve Fund to a level above the targeted threshold amount of $279 million (an amount equal to 5% of the General fund revenue) by sweeping unspent departmental funds at year end into the Reserve Fund.

Financing everyday operating expenses (including legal judgments) and the Structural Deficit with long term debt is a fool’s solution that is embraced by Paul Krekorian, the Chair of the Budget and Finance Committee of the City Council. Not only is it poor financial policy, it burdens the next generation with the sins of the past.

At the City Council, Krekorian argued that it was prudent for the City to preserve the option to issue the Judgment Obligation Bonds because of the great uncertainties facing the City. These include projected budget deficits, revenue shortfalls, pressure on the Reserve Fund, a downturn in the economy, less money from Washington, a downgrade by the rating agencies, an adverse stock market, and a lowering of the investment rate assumption for the City’s two pension funds.

But this argument of preserving the City’s options is pure baloney. When City Hall smells new sources of cash, it is full speed ahead. There is no more dangerous place than standing between the members of the City Council and new cash for the General Fund unless it is between them and campaign contributions from real estate developers.

The Judgment Obligations Bonds would not have been necessary if Krekorian and his Budget and Finance Committee had followed the recommendation of the City Administrative Officer to increase the Liability Claims budget to $120 million, a number approximating the prior year’s expenditure of $110 million, almost a double of the budgeted $68 million.

If the Krekorian and the Budget and Finance Committee had been true stewards of the City’s treasury and our money, they would not have needlessly diverted $213 million from the Reserve Fund to the General Fund over the last three years to pay for everyday operating expenses. After all, revenues during this three-year period increased by almost $600 million.

If the Reserve Fund had not been raided, its balance would be almost $500 million, negating the need for any Judgment Obligation Bonds.

Krekorian also said that the lowering of the investment rate assumption for the City’s pension plans would be a “disserve to the public” because it would increase the City’s pension contributions by hundreds of millions. But that begs the question of how he proposes to eliminate the City’s unfunded pension liability that is estimated by Moody’s Investor Services to be more than $20 billion.

But it is Krekorian and his Budget and Finance Committee that are doing a “disservice to the public” by continuing to kick the budget can down our lunar cratered streets and broken sidewalks. We have rivers of red ink, Structural Deficits, massively underfunded pension plans, and some of the worst streets in the nation.

As a first step in reforming our City’s finances, deep six the Judgment Obligation Bonds and save us $20 million.

And then Krekorian and his Budget and Finance Committee need to develop a long term plan that will require the City to Live Within Its Means. Is that too much to ask of the highest paid City Council in the country?

(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee and is the Budget and DWP representative for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council. He is a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. Jack is affiliated with Recycler Classifieds -- www.recycler.com. He can be reached at: lajack@gmail.com.)